C., EMERALD L., MTR. OF ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1375
    CAF 11-02266
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF EMERALD L.C.
    --------------------------------------
    CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL           MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
    DAVID C., JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    PATRICIA M. MCGRATH, LOCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    BARBARA L. WIDRIG, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
    ROBERT W. SCHNIZLER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, JAMESTOWN, FOR EMERALD
    L.C.
    Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County
    (Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 20, 2011 in a proceeding
    pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other
    things, adjudged that respondent David C., Jr. permanently neglected
    the subject child, Emerald L.C. and transferred custody and
    guardianship of the subject child to petitioner.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to
    Social Services Law § 384-b seeking to terminate the parental rights
    of respondent father with respect to five of his children based on
    permanent neglect. In these consolidated appeals, the father appeals
    from orders that terminated his parental rights with respect to those
    children. We note at the outset that the father’s contention that
    Family Court failed to make the requisite finding that petitioner
    exercised diligent efforts to reunite him with the subject children is
    belied by the record.
    The father further contends that petitioner failed to exercise
    diligent efforts to reunite him with the subject children. Although
    the father raises that contention for the first time on appeal and
    thus failed to preserve it for our review (see generally Matter of
    Christian A., 6 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178, lv denied 3 NY3d 604), we
    nevertheless address it because “proof by the child-care agency that
    it has satisfied its statutory obligation is a threshold consideration
    and a necessary prerequisite to any determination of permanent
    neglect” (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385-386). We conclude,
    -2-                          1375
    CAF 11-02266
    however, that the father’s contention lacks merit. The court properly
    concluded that there was copious evidence that petitioner exercised
    diligent efforts to reunite the family, but the father “refused to
    acknowledge and treat the underlying sexual abuse problem that led to
    the child[ren]’s placement in foster care” (Matter of Gloria Melanie
    S., 47 AD3d 438, 438). “Clearly, petitioner was not required to
    forego requiring [the father’s] participation in a sex offender
    program or to formulate an alternative plan to accommodate his refusal
    to admit his role in the abuse” (Matter of James X., 37 AD3d 1003,
    1006).
    Finally, inasmuch as the father did not request a suspended
    judgment, he failed to preserve for our review his further contention
    that the court should have granted that relief (see Matter of Atreyu
    G. [Jana M.], 91 AD3d 1342, 1343, lv denied 19 NY3d 801).
    Entered:   December 21, 2012                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAF 11-02266

Filed Date: 12/21/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024